UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Liam Fox

  • Liam Fox – 2016 Speech on Housing Pressures Caused by Migrants

    Liam Fox – 2016 Speech on Housing Pressures Caused by Migrants

    The speech made by Liam Fox on 2 June 2016.

    All across the country, local authorities are facing huge challenges to meet additional housing targets set by Central Government. Local communities are facing the loss of green spaces in the rush for housebuilding, often failing to take into account the limitations on existing infrastructure.

    Take the village of Yatton, in my own constituency of North Somerset, for instance. Despite having no surplus school places, fully saturated GP surgeries and an already overstretched road system, it is typical of innumerable of villages across the country, where local communities are being asked to absorb large numbers of extra houses without any realistic possibility that the money will be found to provide the extra infrastructure required.

    It is a story being repeated time and time again in more and more places. People rightly ask, “how much of our green space will disappear, possibly forever?” and “how much of our quality of life will be compromised to deal with problems often created far away?”

    And they are right that the problem that is being faced at the local level begins well away from our communities at the level of national policy failure. It lies in the failure to control the growth of our population through immigration, including immigration from the European Union.

    As the Government fails to control the increase in the population due to migration, it forces local authorities to build more and more houses to deal with the ripple effect.

    If we remain in the European Union we will be forced to accept unlimited free movement of people – but there will be no free movement of space coming with them. The inevitable result will be worsening overcrowding in our land limited country.

    Most of the focus in the housing debate has been on supply. There is a relatively broad consensus that the UK needs to build around 250,000 additional homes every year to meet current demand. In the last ten years an average of only 170,000 have been built and the debate has largely been around how changes to planning can facilitate the level of house building required.

    Yet, what this approach to the problem fails to understand is that it is not merely an issue of supply, but one of demand.

    For much of the 20th century, the number of households grew at a faster rate than the population as a whole. Changes in social behaviour, such as divorce and the increased tendency for people to live alone, as well as demographics, meant that the average household size fell. In recent times, however, average household size has changed little, and the key factor driving the growth in household numbers has been population growth.

    The total non-British net inflow of immigrants is close to 350,000 with migration from the EU now accounting for about half of that figure.

    The outcome of the recent renegotiation of benefits will make no significant difference to these numbers, as the office for budget responsibility, the government’s advisory body has confirmed.

    This implies continued total net EU migration to the UK of the order of almost 200,000 people per annum.

    This number is growing dramatically and has already more than doubled since 2012.

    The continuing failure of the Eurozone and the tragically high levels of unemployment in Southern Europe is likely to mean that more and more young people will head to the North of Europe, including the UK, in search of work.

    And all this does not include those countries who may join the EU in the coming years.

    All these factors could considerably boost the numbers and we are powerless to stop it. Staying in the EU is likely to mean continued high levels of immigration over which the UK would have no control while leaving the EU would give back control of immigration policy to the UK government so enabling the number of immigrants to be reduced while, at the same time, being more selective about who can come to the UK.

    Continuation of net migration on the current scale would mean an increase in our population of almost 5 million in 15 years’ time.

    This would be the equivalent of adding the combined population of the cities of Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford and Bristol.

    60% of this increase would be from future migrants and their children. This is not a scare story, simply an extrapolation of how today’s immigration figures will impact on our society in the years ahead if changes are not made to policy. Half of this huge figure is attributable to the EU.

    Official figures show that in the last ten years, two thirds of additional households in the UK have been headed up by an immigrant (that is to say that they had a foreign born “Household Reference Person (HRP) – what used to be known as head of household) [c]. Households with a foreign born HRP have increased by around 120,000 a year during this period.

    In London, despite the rapid growth in population the number of households headed by a British born person has actually fallen in the last ten years.

    This is a particular problem in England which takes over 90% of immigrants to the UK despite the fact that it is is already nearly twice as crowded as Germany and 3½ times as crowded as France.

    Yet population growth on the present scale means making our urban areas still more overcrowded or building over valuable green belt or farmland with all the loss of amenity involved.

    At current levels of immigration, the Office for National Statistics project that our population will continue to grow by around half a million a year – a city the size of Liverpool every year.

    This will mean that, in England, we will have to build a new home every six minutes, or 240 a day, for the next 20 years to accommodate just the additional demand for housing from new migrants. That is before we take into account the needs of those who were born here.

    Of course, it would be wrong to imply that most newly built housing is occupied by immigrants. Many immigrant households move into existing properties. The need to build a new home every 6 minutes it is to deal with the additional demand for housing, it is obviously not that these new homes will be occupied directly by immigrants.

    To be even more specific, the difference in projected household growth between ‘high’ net migration and ‘zero’ net migration is 95,000 households per year or more than one additional household every 6 minutes.

    These patterns create consequences for almost all sections of society.

    Most new immigrants move into the private rented sector which has grown as the immigrant population has grown. Competition for rented accommodation obliges all those in the private rented sector to pay high rents which take a large share of income and makes saving to buy a home even harder.

    These resulting high rents and a shortage of housing make it much more difficult for young people to set up home on their own so they have to spend more time in house shares or with their parents.

    The problem in the private rented sector may well be exacerbated by recent moves to clamp down on the buy to rent sector.

    High rents and high house prices resulting from an imbalance of supply and demand in the market often means that families have to live in overcrowded conditions or move away from their local area to find suitable accommodation that they can afford.

    Those living in the parts of the UK with lower housing costs cannot afford to move for work leaving, them trapped in areas with fewer opportunities.

    Of course there are other drivers to housing demand, some of which will have been hidden by the recent undersupply in the market.

    For example, if supply were to be increased some younger people would leave their parents’ home or house shares thus adding to effective demand.

    But this cannot get away from the fact that a huge increase in population is driving a demand for housing that we are finding difficult to cope with, at least without potentially damaging the quality of life for those who already live in our country.

    A satellite survey by a research team at the University of Leicester between 2006 and 2012, found that between 2006 and 2012, 22,000 hectares (54,000 acres) of green space in Britain was converted to “artificial surfaces” – mostly housing, but including the roads, other infrastructure required to support the houses themselves.

    More than 7,000 hectares of forest was felled, 14,000 hectares of farmland concreted and 1,000 hectares of precious wetland was drained to make way for urban sprawl.

    That’s a landscape twice the size of Liverpool, transformed forever, in just six years.

    Without a substantial change in policy, the same thing will happen – again and again and again.

    Membership of the European Union is usually measured in monetary terms but there are other ways of measuring the cost.

    A constant unchecked flow of migration will inevitably result in more of our open spaces and natural greenery being turned over to housing.

    Some of that may be inevitable, with growth of our own population, or changing social behaviours, but simply because some of this pattern may be inevitable is no reason to be resigned to it.

    My message, especially to the young and those with young families is this – if we remain in the EU, if we have uncontrolled migration year after year after year after year, you will find it harder to get a home of your own.

    You will find it harder to see a GP or you will find it harder to get a school place and you will see our green spaces disappear at an even greater rate.

    If we are unable to control immigration and registered from its current levels, then we will pay a much more subtle and long-term price than money can measure.

  • Liam Fox – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Restrictions

    Liam Fox – 2021 Speech on Covid-19 Restrictions

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2021.

    Let me begin by saying a word about the vaccine programme and issuing a plea to Ministers.

    It is important that, with the emergence of omicron, we do not accidentally underplay the success of the vaccine programme to date. We know that vaccines will generate a number of immune responses—the production of neutralising antibodies, the production of marker antibodies, and a T-cell response—and, although with omicron a booster dose is required to bring about the level of neutralising antibodies that we saw following our response of two doses to the delta variant, the whole programme gives both individual and community protection; and we are starting from a very different place from the place where we were with the delta variant.

    It is very important for us to encourage people, especially young people, to get their second dose. May I make a plea that we stop hearing from Ministers the phrase “two doses don’t work, three doses do”? I think that it is undermining the Government’s own programme. May I also make a plea that we drop this constant reference to the doubling time of the current variant? The fact that the measured doubling has been two days in the very early stages is no measure whatsoever that that is something that we will see in the future. If it doubled every day, the whole population would be affected in nine days. This is not modelling; it is simple extrapolation, which does not contribute to a sensible debate on the subject.

    When it comes to the proposals before us today, lawmakers need to look at several elements. Are these measures necessary, are they proportionate, are they enforceable and will they be effective? Let me begin with the 10-day quarantine, which was a bad measure to begin with. It was disproportionate and it was likely to bring about a recurrence of the “pingdemic”, so I am glad that it is being dropped. However, the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is a key one which must be answered by the Government. If having the red list is pointless and if enforced 10-day quarantine is pointless, why are some people still in enforced 10-day quarantine? It is incumbent on the Government, having abandoned the policy, to let those people go free, otherwise I fear that the Government may face legal action.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Some Welsh rugby players who had covid in South Africa did 10 days’ quarantine there and are halfway through quarantine in England, and they are now being told that they must complete the whole of the quarantine period. When the position is as illogical as that, it brings the whole thing into dispute.

    Dr Fox

    I absolutely agree, and what we do not require is more advice from Ministers on this subject; we require decisions from Ministers on this subject.

    I also want to raise the issue of masks. I receive letters, as I imagine all Members do, from people who say, “There is no point in wearing masks because they do not stop transmission.” I assume that those people would not like their surgeons to wear masks during a surgical procedure. This is nonsense: mask wearing is a common-sense thing for us to do if it reduces transmission to some degree. It is a minor inconvenience to the vast majority of people and it is a sensible measure for the Government to introduce, and I therefore support it.

    I cannot say the same for the Government’s covid passport. I do not believe it passes the necessity test, and I think the good working of the insurance industry and the availability of civil remedy in the courts are enough to drive the behaviour of venues towards sensible public health policy. We, as a Government, should not be creating criminal offences unnecessarily. I worry about enforcement and penalties in a system that is already overloaded. There is no evidence from Scotland or elsewhere that covid passports actually work. France was mentioned earlier, and there are more than twice as many people in hospital with covid in France than in the United Kingdom.

    Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Dr Fox

    I have given way once. I am conscious that colleagues want to speak, so I will not give way again.

    I assume the lateral flow tests will have to be externally validated, which will add a cost to anyone who wants to go to one of these venues. That will not be the help to the hospitality industry that has been suggested by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.

    When compulsory vaccination was introduced for care workers, many hon. Members took the view that it was the thin end of the wedge, but we were assured that it would be care workers and no one else. Now it is all NHS workers, with a few exemptions. The ground for compulsory vaccination is that these staff will be working with vulnerable members of the public. Well, so will the police and some retail and post office workers. Where does it stop?

    The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made the valid point that this is a retrospective change to the terms and conditions of people who already work in the NHS, and it is likely that we will lose staff as a consequence. This is completely unnecessary when more than 91% of NHS staff have already volunteered to be vaccinated. It is disproportionate and illogical, and I do not believe it will be effective. If the logic of the Government’s position on covid passports is that people must be given a choice between being vaccinated and getting a daily lateral flow test, why does that not operate in the health service, too? The lack of logic in many of these measures diminishes support for the Government’s case.

    I end on a positive note. Many of these measures are relatively small beer compared with what we can achieve through the booster campaign, so it is essential that the one message we leave the House with tonight is that every one of us has a duty to say to every one of our constituents, “Go out, get immunised and get a booster. That is the best way you can help yourself, your family, your community and wider public health.” If there is to be unanimity in the House at this time of year, that is surely the message that must resonate.

  • Liam Fox – 2021 Speech on Portishead Railway

    Liam Fox – 2021 Speech on Portishead Railway

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 26 November 2021.

    Earlier today, I had the great pleasure of introducing my Down Syndrome private Member’s Bill, on which I was extremely grateful for the support of the Government. Let us hope that we can repeat that exercise now and make it two in a row.

    This is the third time I have raised the issue of the railway extension to Portishead on the Adjournment in this House. Let us be very clear: we are not talking about HS2. We are not talking about major infrastructure or billions of pounds from the public purse. We are not talking about massive environmental impact or huge public dissent about the route. We are, as I have repeatedly said, seeking only around 1.3 miles of additional track. Although that is only a tiny fraction of the extra railway lines that are currently being planned, it has proved a gargantuan challenge to get through the bureaucracy required to provide a growing and affluent town with improved public transport—public transport that will improve quality of life for many, take traffic off our overcrowded roads and provide a public transport route into Portishead that may help to alleviate our current labour shortage.

    On 20 October 2021, the decision was issued from the Secretary of State for Transport’s office to extend the statutory deadline to determine the application for the proposed rail “Portishead branch line—MetroWest phase 1” development consent order by up to six months to April 2022. That extension has significant financial, reputational and programme implications for North Somerset Council and comes as a great disappointment to all of us who have looked forward to the opening of the railway line, particularly given the Government’s support for the expansion of the railway network. When I requested further information from Ministers, I was informed that there was a fear that a judicial review might be granted to environmental groups opposed to the reopening of the line. I will return to that point later on.

    On 10 November 2021, North Somerset received initial feedback requesting further information on carbon budgets. Understandably, the council has been seeking urgent clarification as to whether that information will address the so-called environmental matters that have been cited as the delay to the granting of the DCO. What might seem like precautionary legal moves to a large Department are having significant costs at a local level, and we are all at a loss to fully understand the situation, which is why I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this debate today. If the Government want to see improvements in the rail network, including the opening of new lines such as that to Portishead, we need predictability, not surprises.

    I fully understand the Government’s disappointment that several DCOs, such as that at Stonehenge, have been thwarted by judicial reviews, and I also understand the fear that those groups that have been involved in lawbreaking in recent times, such as Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain, might seek such a review on the Portishead line, but I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that our local scheme has the full support of all our mainstream environmental groups, which can fully see the advantage of taking traffic off our congested roads and on to the railways. In these circumstances, I wonder whether any judge would be likely to grant a judicial review to some of these more extreme organisations.

    The issues that may have arisen with some of these other DCOs are not present in our case. There has already been a very detailed examination of the environmental and wider considerations of the merits of the scheme, including examination of the environmental statement and habitats regulations assessment. That also included a report into the implications for European sites. The information requested by the Department on carbon budgets should be easily resolved, and North Somerset will make it available as quickly as possible, but it is essential that we all understand whether there will be further issues that may result in a delay.

    Let me be very clear with the House: delays of the nature suggested in October can have a hugely detrimental impact on the ability to deliver this project within costs and on time. Following an initial review with Network Rail, it has been assessed that the scheme may accommodate a maximum delay of three months, albeit importing additional cost and risk to the programme. A six-month delay, as suggested by the Secretary of State’s office, would have a potentially devastating impact. It is important that we understand whether this six-month figure was simply plucked out of the air and whether a shorter delay would deal with any reservations from the Department.

    For example, at a practical level, delays beyond 14 January would result in key ecology windows being missed, with a net programme impact of at least 12 months. We can control a lot of things in North Somerset, but the calendar is not one of them. It has been assessed that the impact on cost beyond 14 January 2022 will be in the order of an additional £13 million at minimum—an unacceptable figure for the project to bear. The loss of £13 million may be a rounding error on a weekly basis to big Government Departments, but on local government projects of this nature, it is a very large sum indeed.

    Today I am asking the Minister to ensure that we receive a positive DCO decision by 14 January 2022 to facilitate the continuation of the project. Failing that, it is unavoidable that we will incur significant extra cost on further legal and consultancy support, and difficulties with practical issues such as the manual clearance of vegetation over the winter—again, something over which we have no control. Although it is clear that the Government have some flexibility in the timetable that they impose on the project, there is, I am afraid, no flexibility in nature’s season.

    This scheme fits into every aspect of current Government policy, from environmental benefits to improved public transport and increased economic opportunity. Although we are tantalisingly close to finally getting delivery of a scheme that is supported across the whole community and from every aspect of political opinion, we are still not quite there. I understand that this is a live planning decision and that the Minister may be limited in what he can legally tell us today, but knowing him as I do, I trust that he will sense the frustration that many of us feel—very much including myself—and will undertake to get us full and rapid answers to the reasonable questions that we are currently asking.

  • Liam Fox – 2021 Speech on Global Britain

    Liam Fox – 2021 Speech on Global Britain

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 11 January 2021.

    Naturally, I am glad that we have finally left the European Union in all its manifestations, which I always believed was an unnatural berth for a United Kingdom that was outward-looking and sovereign. However, Brexit is not a panacea in itself. What Brexit does is bring choices and options and freedoms that would not otherwise be there. To make it succeed we have to have vision for our future, we have to have courage in policy and we have to have boldness in execution. Government structures must be re-oriented towards the task, funding not only those institutions we need inside the United Kingdom to make it succeed, but our elements abroad as well, something the Treasury will need to come to terms with.

    If I may, I would like to say two things about trade. First, Brexit allows us to have an independent trade policy, but that comes with one major drawback: we actually have to have more exporters to make it worthwhile. Unless we have more goods and services to sell—unless we have more trade—a free trade agreement is little more than another piece of paper. That is why I welcomed the push for an updated and extended transport strategy.

    Secondly, it allows us to deal with some global trade issues. Global trade was shrinking before we got to the covid crisis, not least because of the number of non-tariff barriers being loaded into the global economy by the world’s richest countries. We are making it more and more difficult for some of the world’s poorest countries to access our markets. If we continue that trend, our aid budget will become little more than conscience money while we stop people being able to trade their way sustainably out of poverty. We need to take a strong look at our own behaviour and what we are doing in terms of putting up barriers to some of the world’s poorest nations. It is wonderful that we are talking about reducing tariffs for some of the world’s poorest countries, but we need to take a good look at the non-tariff barriers that are making it so difficult for them to enter our markets. That problem is being made worse at the present time by the export restrictions on medicines and medical products. They will need to be reduced, otherwise they will accentuate the problems we are facing with covid.

    We have a World Trade Organisation that is, frankly, on the edge of collapse. That brings me to the final point I want to make about the institutions where Britain can play a bigger role. Multilateral institutions such as the UN, the Security Council, the OECD, IMF and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development were all designed for the second half of the 20th century. They need to be brought up to date for the challenges of the 21st century. Those who have shown the way in the United Kingdom, both in politics and the civil service, can give a lead. There are our other partnerships, too. In NATO, our European partners must learn to step up to the plate on spending. The Five Eyes community has far more than just security potential for us. The Commonwealth—a third of the global population, most of whom are under the age of 30—shares many of our political institutions and our legal system.

    There are tremendous opportunities for the UK. We can choose to shape the global system around us or be shaped by it. I know what I want for my country.

  • Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

    Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

    Those of us who voted and campaigned to leave the European Union did so for a number of reasons. I was always a constitutional leaver. For me, the test of this Bill is: does it return the sovereignty that we sought? The answer is yes. Why? Because there is no subjugation to EU law or EU jurisprudence, no direct effect and no direct application. Retention of any of those would have been incompatible with a sovereign state. In fact, from our accession to the European Community through various EU treaties, all those elements were incompatible with the concept that those who live under the law should be able to determine those who make the law. That is what we have regained in this process.

    The second test for me is: does this allow us to have a genuinely independent trade policy? Let us remember that we were told that it would take more than 10 years to reach a free trade agreement with the European Union and that it would be impossible to roll over all the EU agreements that we had. I stood at the Dispatch Box and listened to the Opposition incessantly telling us that. I congratulate Ministers and officials under Crawford Falconer at the Department for International Trade for all they have achieved, and I especially congratulate David Frost on landing one of the world’s biggest, if not the biggest, trade agreements in 11 months—a world record—which, again, we were told was not possible.

    When we voted to leave the European Union, we also voted to leave the single market, although for some of us the single market is also the single anti-market, with many of the restrictions and protectionisms that it encompasses. If we want to access the single market, there has to be a price to be paid. If we want to diverge from the rules of the single market, there has to be a price to be paid. Does this agreement provide effective mechanisms for us to do those things? My answer, again, is yes.

    Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mechanisms that this treaty has found are every bit as good as the mechanisms in the Canada treaty, for example, and all other treaties that reflect these tensions in free trade agreements?

    Dr Fox

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and not only are they effective mechanisms, but they keep us in line with the best international practice that exists, which of course enables us to move forward with greater predictability. On that point, there are a number of specific elements to welcome. The first is the acceptance of the concept—

    Jonathan Edwards

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Dr Fox

    I will not, I am afraid.

    The first element is the concept of non-regression as a means of ensuring minimum standards. We accept that the maintenance of those high standards has fixed costs in international commerce, which is why we will always need to compete at the high end of the quality market globally in goods and services. As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, we cannot ever become a bargain basement economy because the fixed costs we have are simply too high and, quite rightly, the British people would not allow us to abandon the standards we have. It means that we will have to move forward with the natural innovation and creativity of the British people expanding our export culture, because the bottom line is that without more exports and without more actual trade, any trade agreement is simply a piece of paper. It is upon the natural innovation of the British people that our prosperity will be built in the future.

    The second element, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) alluded, is the fact that the concept in dispute resolution of international arbitration is done without the European Court of Justice, which brings us in line with international trends and practices. That takes us to the third element: the mechanism of determining divergence. If there is no ability to determine to diverge, we are not sovereign. If there were not a price to be paid for divergence, the EU would never have reached the agreement with us. What would have been unacceptable is the concept of dynamic alignment—automatically taking EU rules over which we had no control into our law—but what is acceptable is penalties for divergence, which are clearly set out. They are proportionate, and there is a requirement to show harm, rather than their simply being put into law. The most important element of all in this is that it is we who will weigh up the costs and benefits of any potential disalignment. It is our choice—that is one of the key elements that we have in the future.

    Today opens up a new chapter in our politics. It is the choice of maintaining and strengthening an independent United Kingdom; or of the new ranks of the rejoiners, who would have us thrust back into European accession politics all over again, consuming all our political time and energy, which is a future that I believe the British public will reject. There are things that we still have to sort out—the future of Gibraltar is one of the important ones, as is seeing further details on services, including financial services—but this is a historic day in our democracy. We have delivered on the referendum and our election promises. If, for the Opposition, those are not reasons to be cheerful, they are at least reasons of which we should all be proud.

  • Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on the Trade Bill

    Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on the Trade Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020.

    I will not go over the detailed points in relation to the Bill so eloquently made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I have to say that I recognised some of the phraseology in her arguments—but I want to deal with the context in which it is being brought forward.

    During the long gestation of the Bill, a lot has changed. Not only have we had the covid crisis, which will have a fundamental effect on the global economy, but in 2019 we saw the culmination of many of the predictions that were made by the Department for International Trade. We predicted that we would see first a slowdown in the growth of global trade and then potentially a contraction of global trade itself. We watched through 2019 the WTO make predictions on global trade growth, down ​from 2.8% to 2.2% and 1.4%. It finally came in at 0.7%. The key element was that it contracted in Q4, which has generally in history presaged a downturn in the global economy.

    That happened for a number of reasons. The US-China trade dispute had a general effect on global trade, and in particular we saw the shortening of global supply chains, as people sought to onshore and shorten global supply chains by minimising the import of intermediate goods. We saw the inevitable consequence of the trend over the decade of the G20 countries applying more and more non-tariff barriers to trade—quadrupling them in the first half of this decade—and they all matter. A bit of consumer protection here, a bit of environmental protection there and a bit of producer protection here are all justifiable in themselves, but they all add up. They have all resulted in a silting up of the global trading system, and the skies over the global trading system are now darkening with those chickens coming home to roost.

    Why does it matter? It matters because a free and open trading system has been our route to the reduction in global poverty, with more than 1 billion people taken out of abject poverty in just one generation. There is another reason it matters, which is that access to prosperity, political stability and security are part of the same continuum. It is unthinkable that the wealthiest countries in the world should pull up the ladder behind us, stopping developing countries gaining access to the same levels of prosperity. It is absurd to believe that we can do that without seeing disruption in global security. If we deny people access to prosperity, do not be surprised if we see more mass migration and more radicalisation. We need to understand that we cannot separate the concepts. Those who wish to introduce protectionism into the global economy will have to bear the consequences of the actions they are currently embarked upon.

    I want to see us, through this Bill and beyond, doing more on global trade liberalisation. Going back to where we were pre-covid will not be enough, because global trade was contracting. I was a proud Brexiteer, but I have never been a little Englander. My objection to the European Union in the era of globalisation was not the absurd notion that it was foreign, but that it was not foreign enough. It did not have global aspirations that were in tune with what we as a country wanted to see. Post covid, all the challenges we face together will be bigger, and we will have to work with all those who believe in free trade to put them right.

    The UK exports 30% of our GDP. Germany exports 48% of its GDP, and OECD data shows that the trade slowdown has hit the European Union hardest of all in the global economy, with exports from the EU contracting by 1.8% in the third quarter of 2019, even before global trade itself contracted. That is the scale of the challenge that we face.

    The Government’s proposed tariff regime reform is to be hugely welcomed, although it could be even more liberal yet. The new FTAs and the roll-over agreements allowed through the Bill are also to be welcomed. Those who put obstacles, political and otherwise, in the way of both the roll-over agreements and the new FTAs through largely pointless and irrelevant arguments need to understand the consequences to the wider global economy, as well as to our domestic prosperity, of doing so.​

    My right hon. Friend was right when she talked about the bigger picture and how we must champion World Trade Organisation reform. Without it, we will be unable to maintain the rules-based system, which is already substantially under threat. The alternative to a rules-based system is the survival of the strongest, and that will have the biggest impact on the poorest countries. This is an area where we can give a lead as a country not only economically, but morally.

  • Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Liam Fox – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

    I begin by thanking all those key workers in North Somerset who keep our essential services moving, all the voluntary groups who have kept our communities healthy and all those who have maintained the Government guidelines, keeping one another safe.

    Even at this point in the pandemic, there are a few points worth making about the medicine. In a pandemic with a new virus, where there is no vaccine and no cure, most of the population are likely to become infected over time. A lockdown, the likes of which we have had in the United Kingdom, can reduce the peak death rate, history will suggest, by up to 50%, and it will reduce the excess mortality rate over time, but not to such a great extent. It is worth us keeping that in mind as we look forward to future steps.

    We do not know how this virus will behave. It is not influenza, and therefore influenza modelling may not be the most appropriate. It may be seasonal. There may be winter peaks that recur, but there may not. It may disappear as SARS did, for example, or have sporadic cases, as MERS had, but the virus is likely to remain, evolve and mutate, so this is not a war. The virus will not surrender. There will be no VC day, so my advice to politicians, the media and commentators alike is to take Basil Fawlty’s advice and “don’t mention the war”. It gives a false perspective for the public in understanding the likely course that this pandemic will take.

    If the virus will spread widely through the population in the course of this illness, the great unknown is what proportion of the population have already been infected and may have been asymptomatic. There are studies in other countries—they are not yet published or not yet peer-reviewed, so it is not evidence that we can readily use—that suggest that in some populations, the asymptomatic proportion of the population can be quite high. We will know that only if we are able to introduce a programme of widespread antibody testing, because the current programme of PCR—polymerase chain reaction—testing will diminish in effectiveness as we are able to detect less of the virus. We therefore need an antibody programme that tells us how many in the population have been infected over time. I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to speed up, where possible, the rolling out of antibody testing, because it will be key in the longer term to understanding the spread of the illness, our ability to control it and our ​ability to set free those who will have been cocooned for some time as a consequence of the measures that we have already taken.

    How successful we will be in dealing with this particular viral outbreak will be a long-term judgment. We need to be patient, because there are no immediate answers here or anywhere else. We will need to wait to see the level of excess global deaths before we are able to determine whether, in closing down parts of the global economy, we have actually overreacted as a global community to the emergence of a new virus. That will be crucial for our future activities, because we cannot afford to close down the global economy every time we have a new virus emerging, and, if we are not willing to do that, we must develop international protocols that will give us an idea of how we manage, in the globalised era, something that will not respect borders however much we in governmental structures wish that it would.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Portishead Railway

    Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Portishead Railway

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, in the House of Commons on 16 October 2019.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, especially during the week of the Queen’s Speech. I am also grateful for the dogged and outstanding support that the Portishead railway project has had from the residents of the town itself, from North Somerset more widely, and from the wider region. I am also grateful to my fellow Bristol MPs for being here this evening. I single out and pay tribute to the Portishead Railway Group, whose contribution has been utterly invaluable.

    When I last raised this issue in an Adjournment debate in this House, in January 2005, I spoke about the increase in population in Portishead. In the mid-1950s, the town had a population of around 9,000, which had risen to some 15,000 by the time I was first elected in the early 1990s. The population now stands at around 25,000. The power station and the phosphorus works that used to sit on the dock are long gone, with the last stacks having been brought down in 1992. In their place, we now have one of the country’s finest marinas, and we have contributed more than most to the rise in the country’s housing stock.

    That housebuilding has not been without controversy. John Prescott, as Housing Minister, ordered that the housing density be doubled, so almost twice as many homes as originally intended were built on this land. That inevitably had consequences for the traffic in the town and parking has been a particular problem. Although the housing density was doubled, the number of parking spaces per home was allocated at the national average of 1.6 per household, when the average in North Somerset, even at the time, was 2.76. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that the inevitable consequence was a huge deficit in the number of parking spaces available compared with what was needed.

    The increased population in what I described back in 2005 as the most overcrowded cul-de-sac in the country—a phrase that has been widely deployed since—has inevitably put pressure on our road system. The A369 is the only A road out of the town, and junction 19 of the M5 is a regularly miserable experience for Portishead commuters, particularly at peak times. The answer to many of our problems, but by no means all, is to reopen the railway line to Portishead, providing additional capacity to our overstretched transport network.

    The reopening of Portishead railway is part of the MetroWest project, which was given the go-ahead in July 2012 as part of the city deal under the coalition Government led by David Cameron. Portishead railway was part of MetroWest phase 1, but it has been beset by delays and cost overruns. In 2017, the planned date of the Portishead opening was 2020, yet by then the original cost of £50 million had mushroomed to £116 million. It became quickly clear that it would be beyond the financial scope of North Somerset Council or, indeed, the partnership of four councils to absorb such an increased cost. We were therefore pleased that the former Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), came to visit North Somerset and indicated that this Government would ensure that additional money became available. I wish to focus on that area ​and some of the technical issues around it so that the Minister can give us categorical assurances where there remain some anxieties.

    The proposed allocation of £31.9 million by the Department exactly closed the funding gap. It did not reduce it; it closed it. The four local councils and the West of England Combined Authority have spent, and continue to spend, millions of pounds on the design of the reinstatement of the railway, the necessary environmental studies, and in preparing the development consent order application. For those who may not be familiar with the process, let me describe what this entails. The development consent order process is based on many submission items, one of which is a full funding statement. The statement has had to be generated on the assumption that the Department’s £31.9 million funding share will not be withdrawn. Another item is the business case, which is strong. Its benefit-cost ratio of around 3:1 is almost unheard of for a public infrastructure project. In other words, we know the reinstatement would be an efficient and effective use of public funds to produce a defined benefit. That is a lot more than we can say for many projects funded with taxpayers’ money.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, both for securing this debate and for allowing me to intervene. He will be aware that, in addition to the football and the rugby, Ashton Gate stadium has hosted a number of entertainment events this year. Investment in transport to and from the ground is critical. As the line goes through south Bristol, it provides an opportunity to open up more local transport provision, so it is not just about what we can get now. We are very supportive of this opportunity, which is critical to us in south Bristol.

    Dr Fox

    I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, and she is right that we deserve better public transport in the Bristol area. Bristol is one of only two cities in the United Kingdom, outside London, that produce a net benefit to the economy, and we deserve a level of spending commensurate with that level of economic contribution to the UK economy.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He was very good to us in Strangford on many occasions in his former position as a Minister, so I wanted to come along to support him tonight.

    The right hon. Gentleman has outlined the need for the Portishead railway to be encouraged and rebuilt, based on the population trends, the extra traffic and the pressure on our roads. Does he agree that perhaps it is time for the Government to look at sustaining public transport, be it railways or buses, to take pressure off the roads?

    Dr Fox

    It is not simply a specific case; it is also a generic one. We need to see major improvements in our railway capacity for exactly those reasons and for the environmental benefits that will come from not having the pollutants from slow-moving traffic congesting our towns and villages.

    As a result of the Department for Transport announcing its £31.9 million funding share, the four local councils and the West of England Combined Authority have ​now committed to their £84 million share of the funding for the railway project. I make it clear that the railway reinstatement cannot be completed without the Department’s £31.9 million, so can the Minister make a clear commitment tonight that the Department’s funding will be solely on the basis of there being a good business case?

    Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)

    I am pleased to be here to support the right hon. Gentleman’s case for the Portishead line. Does he agree it is part of what should be a much broader rail network? It is about commuter traffic into and out of Bristol. My Bristol North West constituency is adjacent to his, and there should be a connection to the Henbury loop line so that people can travel between the major areas of employment, as well as travelling into and out of the city.

    Dr Fox

    I completely agree. Our transport network is now an economic rate-limiting step in the Bristol area. I know, and my colleagues will know, of companies that want to grow but are incapable of doing so. We are fortunate to have low levels of unemployment in our area, but it is difficult to get people to come into those areas where growth could occur because our public transport network is so inadequate.

    The second issue I would like the Minister to address tonight is the Department’s rail network enhancements pipeline. As the House will know, the RNEP is a multistage process that could lead the Department to adjust its priorities such that its £31.9 million funding share could be either reduced or cancelled. This railway reinstatement is widely accepted as a no brainer in the region and beyond. It has a strong business case, and it is viewed as being of the highest priority in the wider Bristol area. The Department for Transport itself seems to think that the reinstatement of the Portishead line is a major improvement to our railways overall, and so do I. A ministerial commitment on this issue would be most welcome, so will the Minister confirm that the RNEP process will be used only to assure the Department that it is using its money wisely, rather than being used to generate a reason to reduce or cancel the Department’s funding contribution?

    The Portishead reinstatement will upgrade 8 km of existing Network Rail freight line to Pill and reinstate the track along 4 km of existing permanent way from Pill to Portishead. Given the length of time it has taken and the amount of money spent, it must be one of the greatest investments in one of the smallest increases in railway track that the House has seen.

    Unfortunately, despite the extremely modest nature of this particular project, the reinstatement is subject to the weighty process that applies to major rail improvements. Why? Because the criterion set out in the Planning Act 2008 is pegged at more than 2 km of track on non-railway land. The only reason why more than 2 km of the reinstatement track is on non-railway land is that North Somerset Council wisely decided to purchase the Portbury to Portishead section to ensure future reinstatement. In other words, we are being penalised because of the council’s foresight and confidence that this most worthwhile project would eventually be brought to fruition.

    I understand that, unfortunately, the processes operated by the planning inspectorate for the DCO and by the Department for the RNEP clearly have to be followed, ​despite the non-major nature of the reinstatement. I want from the Minister an assurance that everything possible will be done to ensure that the process is as speedy as possible, within the constraints of the law.

    Given the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, which has been widely discussed recently, will the Minister confirm that he and his officials will do everything they can to speed up the processes, so that the long-standing congestion and environmental pollution that afflict the 50,000-plus people who will directly benefit from the railway and the 130,000-plus people who will indirectly benefit from the railway, can be reduced at the earliest opportunity?

    I wish to raise two other brief points. There has been much speculation locally that, rather than a traditional railway, a hybrid of bus, tram and train might be introduced. What is the Minister’s understanding of the likely outcome of any such proposals currently under consideration? There has been a great deal of debate about the relative merits of a range of different alternatives, but we are now seeking an end to the indecision, and clarity about the timescale and nature of the transportation system itself.

    When I visited the North Somerset summer show this July, I gave my word that I would raise the issue of Sustrans. I am sure the Minister will be aware that Sustrans has been instrumental in the creation of a national network of cycle routes on quiet roads and traffic-free paths that now extends to more than 17,000 miles. I hope that he and his Department can look into the potential for a dual-use path alongside the planned railway, to see whether we can improve our local facilities further, with all the benefits that that will bring to recreation, transport and health.

    As I have said, this project is a no-brainer. It fulfils all the Government’s criteria for reducing road congestion, improving our environment and improving the functioning of our local economy. We are keen to give the Government all those things—if they give us reassurance, clarity and the necessary funding. After all the delay, I would be proud if this Government gave the people of Portishead what they deserve and what they have waited so long to get.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on India Day

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 16 July 2019.

    1. Introduction

    Thank you – and in particular my thanks to the Indian business leaders and of course Piyush Goyal, [Minister of Railways of India] who have flown a long way to attend today – and to the City of London co-hosting this event.

    Just two months ago, India was the home of the greatest democratic exercise in the history of mankind: a truly extraordinary beacon to the world of India’s freedom, democratic values and independence.

    And I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Piyush Goyal, [Minister of Railways of India] and the Indian Government for their fresh mandate and, in particular to welcome the programme of economic reform and development. There is a clear momentum emerging.

    I also welcome the announcements in India’s Budget last week of plans for further liberalisation of foreign direct investment and financial markets.

    This is a moment of great opportunity for both UK and Indian companies, and we must seize it together.

    2. The strength of UK-India relations

    India is due to become the world’s third largest economy by the end of the next decade and is currently the fastest growing G20 economy.

    As two modern, diverse democracies, the UK and India are natural partners, working together to help drive this transformation: promoting our people’s prosperity, improving global security and tackling our common challenges.

    The total number of people employed by British companies in India currently stands at 788,000 – 50,000 of which were jobs created within the last 2 years.

    But there are also 800 Indian companies employing nearly 105,000 people in the UK.

    And Indian inward investment to the UK has brought more than just capital. It has also brought skills, exports, good corporate citizenship, and entrepreneurialism.

    UK subsidiaries of Indian parent firms represent some of the UK’s largest tech companies such as Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and exporters, such as JLR.

    And the latest figures show UK-India overall bilateral trade increased by 14% last year to £20.5 billion. And since 2010, the UK and India are among the top five investors in each other’s economies.

    3. The strength of UK financial services

    So we have a remarkable record on which to build.

    And as we look to the future, I believe the United Kingdom has complementary strengths to propel India’s economic growth and transition towards a more services orientated economy: not just as a partner of choice, but the partner of choice.

    We meet today at the historic centre of the world’s greatest and most international financial hub: the City of London.

    And please don’t be fooled by the historic grandeur of our venue. Behind it lies a very modern, innovative and unique ecosystem: with a deep and liquid global capital pool, pioneering regulatory framework, and world-class advisory, legal and related professional services.

    London alone hosts over 250 foreign banks, more than New York, Paris or Frankfurt.

    The UK is the world’s largest centre for cross-border banking.

    We account for fully 37% of global foreign exchange trading, well ahead of other international centres. Twice as many dollars are traded in the UK as in the US, and twice as many euros are traded in the UK as in the Eurozone.

    London continues to be a major global centre for the issuance and trading of bonds, with around 39% of global secondary market turnover in 2017.

    And of course, as we have just heard, the United Kingdom is the home of the FinTech revolution, making sweeping changes, delivering more control, access and increased competition.

    It has been estimated that we have more software developers here in London than Berlin, Dublin and Stockholm all combined.

    And we have a unique chance to build on these strengths in partnership with India. This includes access to the Adhaar personal biometric ID card platform: the greatest in the world, giving UK FinTech firms the opportunity to globalise their product and bring credit to people who have not had access before.

    The UK also ranks number 1 in Europe and first among non-Muslim-majority nations for Islamic finance.

    And in Green Finance the UK is uniquely well placed to provide the complex solutions required to assist the transition to a low-carbon economy and boost clean growth investment.

    4. The City’s offer to India

    So we already have a strong record on which to build with India in particular.

    UK financial markets have helped support the development of whole new product classes, helping Indian firms prosper, grow and go global.

    For example, the internationalisation of the rupee will be a crucial issue in ensuring the Indian economy plays its full role in international trade in the years to come.

    And I was delighted to learn in last week’s Budget that India is considering issuing sovereign bonds abroad. And as I said this morning when I opened the exchange, I hope you will consider issuing on the London Stock Exchange.

    There are over 400 sovereign bonds listed on the exchange, and we are able to offer a low cost, efficient listing process, with access to one of the deepest financial markets in the world.

    The London Stock Exchange is already the world’s largest rupee denominated Masala bond centre: most recently, it hosted an issue by the state of Kerala. It sells more than half of all the rupee denominated bonds issued to overseas buyers globally.

    That’s more than Singapore, more than New York, more than Hong Kong, and more than Frankfurt, all put together.

    I think this demonstrates the scale of what the UK can do for India’s economic transformation: and the potential of what we can achieve together in the future.

    5. DIT/HMG’s offer to India

    Now, the Department for International Trade is here to take these links further: with the sector expertise, financial support and networks in both countries to unleash the vast potential in the strong ties between India and the United Kingdom.

    That is why we have a network of advisers in locations across India, helping to reduce barriers to market access, helping connect UK and Indian firms and sharing advice on local regulations, business practices and consumer tastes.

    That is why last year we appointed Crispin Simon who is with us here today, as Her Majesty’s first ever Trade Commissioner for South Asia, based in Mumbai, and why UK Export Finance, our world-leading export credit agency, can now provide up to £4 billion for British companies doing business in India –available in Rupee’s, so that Indian firms can ‘buy British, pay Indian’.

    It is also why the UK Government has its Ease of Doing Business in India programme, centred on the sharing of UK practical expertise with Indian Central and State Governments, removing barriers to economic growth and supporting India’s meteoric rise up the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings.

    6. Conclusion

    All these efforts stem from a simple premise: the strength of the India-UK relationship and the complementarity of our economies’ strengths, opportunities and potential for the future. But what are these strengths?

    As I have mentioned: Britain’s position as a world-leading finance hub.

    India’s ambitious growth and reform plans – and aspirations to develop its financial infrastructure and tap into global sources of capital.

    The UK’s government vision to build a Global Britain – with stronger links with the world beyond Europe after we leave the European Union.

    And together, these realities are an unrivalled opportunity for our mutual prosperity.

    Tagore once spoke of a world where ‘mind is without fear and the head is held high’.

    And I am confident that with India and the United Kingdom, we can move forward in partnership together, doing just that. Thank you.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Exporting and Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Development, in London on 26 June 2019.

    1. Introduction

    Perhaps I could start with a question. Of these Government Departments, which has the biggest budget?

    Justice, Defence, the Home Office, International Trade. Answers on a postcard. Well, last year Defence came out top, with £28.4 billion. The Home Office was second at £10.8 billion. Third was Justice at £6.3 billion. The Department for International Trade was way down the list. But what might surprise you is the size of the gap between International Trade and the other Departments. In fact, DIT’s budget was less than a tenth of the Ministry of Justice’s, at around £400 million.

    Now, this is in no way to suggest other Departments are over funded or that justice, the police or the defence of the realm are not vital spending priorities. I could hardly say otherwise as the former Defence Secretary!

    2. DIT in context

    But I wanted to put my remarks here in context because there is an untold story here, which I’m going to set out today.

    I am proud to lead a department which has a direct impact on our prosperity.

    In 2017/18 alone, we helped UK businesses export goods and services worth around £30.5 billion, against our total exports of around £645 billion.

    And based on analysis by the Institute for Economic Affairs, DIT estimate that this could potentially generate around £10 billion for the Exchequer.

    Over 2016/17 and 2017/2018 we supported more than 3,500 inward investment projects, creating and safeguarding over 190,000 jobs.

    So my point is that we have some amazing ‘bang for your buck’ given the resources and for the taxpayer’s investment.

    Yet for all this success there is an implicit warning. Global Britain cannot be built on a shoestring.

    As the UK leaves the EU, it is vital that Government aggressively promotes and finances international trade and investment, and champions free trade: promoting the private sector companies that are the wellspring of our national prosperity.

    Economies in South Asia, East Asia and Africa are becoming more and more prosperous, driving demand in precisely those sectors in which the UK excels.

    Ensuring Britain succeeds in this new era means having the right tools to ensure we can unlock the global economy, which will in turn support the UK economy.

    And to sell Britain abroad we need to understand two things. First, the markets we are selling into and the opportunities that they have to offer. And second, our overseas network also has to understand what Britain has to sell in goods and services, constantly updated by our sector teams here in the UK.

    If the United Kingdom is under-armed – if we fail to rise to the opportunities and challenges of a rapidly changing global economy – there are plenty of competitor countries who may be better resourced or equipped. We must ensure that Britain is not left behind in the global trade race.

    3. The case for DIT

    Now, according to the International Trade Centre, the UK has an untapped potential of £124 billion in the export of goods alone. That’s companies that could be exporting because their peers do but are not choosing to do so.

    And fulfilling this potential means being serious about the scale of the challenge posed.

    As we prepare for life after Brexit, we must embrace the opportunity to connect into the markets of the future.

    The global economy is changing, as you all know, at a staggering pace. The population is projected to increase to 9.8 billion by 2050, and will become better educated, wealthier and more urbanised.

    It is predicted that the share of global GDP of the seven largest emerging economies – including China, India and Turkey – could increase from around 35% to nearly 50% of global GDP by 2050, which would mean that they overtake the G7.

    Last year Africa had five of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

    Africa’s GDP has been predicted to double between 2015 and 2030. And the African Development Bank has estimated that by 2060 there could be 1.1 billion middle class Africans: quite a big consumer market.

    This is a golden opportunity for high value UK goods and services to find new consumers and business markets.

    And we are working at the moment to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition for the UK to be the largest G7 investor in Africa by 2022.

    Yet, notwithstanding that, the Department for International Development has more staff in Kenya than the Department for International Trade has in the whole of the continent from Egypt to South Africa.

    This is not to say that our international development efforts are too large, or that they are in competition with our international trade and investment promotion efforts.

    However, if we want to have greater influence, if we want to sell more goods and services abroad, if we want to encourage more British businesses to invest and operate overseas, and overseas firms to locate and invest in the UK, then we must invest in the capabilities required.

    And this means striking a new balance between our spending priorities – not just focusing on how we divide our national income, but how we grow that income too.

    Within whatever spending envelope comes out of the next Spending Review, we must ensure that we prioritise those areas that will generate economic growth and wealth creation for our country in the future.

    4. Free & fair trade

    Over the past three years, I have spent a great deal of time talking about the benefits of free trade. Open, free and fair trade, rooted in a sound and relevant international rules-based trading system has repeatedly shown itself to be of huge benefit to both individuals and states; producers and consumers; and in both developed & developing countries alike.

    And I say consumers because, all too often, we focus on producers without setting out the benefits of free trade to household incomes: keeping prices down and ensuring competition and diversity of supply.

    In fact, I sat through an International Trade Ministers’ meeting where I had my watch out to see how long it would take anyone to say the ‘c’ word: 52 minutes before anyone mentioned consumers.

    As the world’s emerging and developing economies have liberalised trade practices, prosperity has spread, bringing industry, jobs and wealth where once there was only deprivation.

    According to the World Bank, the three decades between 1981 and 2011 witnessed the single greatest decrease in material deprivation in human history. Or, as Francis Fukuyama put it in his recent book “Identity”, the percentage of children dying before their fifth birthday declined from 22% in 1960 to less than 5% by 2016.

    A billion people taken out of abject poverty in one generation. That is why it is morally unthinkable to reject free and open trade.

    Now, as with many freedoms, free and open trade can seem like an inherent fact of life. But the reality is that these freedoms and the benefits that they bestow have been hard-won. They must be continually defended from the siren-call of protectionism, which would tip the global balance in favour of the rich against the poor, the strong against the weak, and the developed against the developing.

    And it is worth reminding ourselves of the positive narrative around free trade and the improvement of the human condition, because in the world around us, there is a rising chorus of protectionism which threatens to drown out the case for a free and open global trading system.

    New barriers, which were touched upon in the last session, many of them invisible, are emerging around the global economy, creating new impediments to the open commerce that is the lifeblood of global prosperity.

    What is worse, many of these impediments are being introduced by G7 and G20 countries – the very nations who have prospered most from the open, liberal trading system of recent decades.

    Research by the OECD has shown that protectionist instincts have grown since the financial crisis of 2008. By 2010 G7 and G20 countries were estimated to be operating some 300 non-tariff barriers to trade: 300. By 2015 this had mushroomed to over 1200 non-tariff barriers to trade. Now protectionism can be seductive but is a dangerous affair. I have described it as the class A drug of the trading world – it can make you feel good at first, but it can prove disastrous in the long term.

    It is economically destructive, preventing us from reallocating global resources effectively. It is also socially regressive because those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their money on goods than services so tariffs and barriers will hurt the poor more. And we will all pay the price if those denied the opportunity of global prosperity turn their backs on the partnerships and cooperation that underpin global security.

    We all have to ensure that those who have most benefited from open and free trade do not pull up the drawbridge behind them and deny the same benefits to others. Why? Because I have never believed that trade is an end in itself, but a means to an end. Trade is a means to an end. Trade is a way in which we spread prosperity more widely. That prosperity underpins social cohesion, that social cohesion in turns underpins political stability and that political stability is the building block of our collective security. If you interrupt that continuum of trade and investment, do not be surprised if you get unwanted consequences, politically, economically or in terms of security.

    5. DIT’s role in ensuring a thriving economy

    Now the Department for International Trade has been key in ensuring we are in a better position to achieve our aims.

    We have been working as never before to help businesses take full advantage of global opportunities, ensuring the UK remains a leading destination for international investment, assisting outward direct investment for UK companies into overseas markets, and negotiating market access for UK exporters.

    Last year we launched a new Export Strategy: to encourage, inform, connect and finance businesses of all sizes with the goal of increasing our exports from 30% to 35% of our GDP moving us to the top of the G7.

    We have convened the Board of Trade for the first time in 150 years to champion trade and investment promotion across whole of the United Kingdom.

    We have created an overseas network of Her Majesty’s Trade Commissioners selected for their expertise in particular markets, building our regional trade plans and securing market access across the globe.

    We have our world-leading export credit agency UK Export Finance, celebrating its 100th birthday this year, with a £50 billion capacity , available in 65 international currencies, to ensure that no UK export fails for lack of finance or insurance: and at no net cost to the taxpayer. 77% of the businesses that UKEF supported in 2017/18 were small and medium-sized enterprises: a step change from the situation previously in terms of that business relationship.

    And, recognising that it takes more than one business to deliver an export contract, I was very proud to announce earlier this month that UKEF has extended eligibility for its support to companies in exporters’ supply chains: not just end stage exporters themselves.

    And this will enable these firms, from car parts suppliers to food packagers – who play a crucial role in supply chains but do not directly sell goods or services themselves overseas – to access the support they need to thrive, including in vital areas such as cashflow.

    We have also launched the UK’s first ever public consultations on new trade agreements – with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP: easier said in the morning than after a drink in the evening!

    6. DIT’s global competitors

    And there is pressing reason for these efforts. It is no secret that countries across the world are ramping up their trade and investment promotion efforts.

    President Macron’s ‘Choose France’ initiative is openly seeking to attract businesses who may be looking to relocate from the UK.

    And the Dutch Government has hired more personnel to optimise support for British companies to move from the UK.

    And yet despite this, the United Kingdom continues to be the top destination in Europe for attracting foreign direct investment: reaching a record high on the latest figures to the end of 2018.

    For the first time in more than four decades, Britain has the opportunity to reach out to the wider world as an independent trading nation, and a global champion of free, fair, rules based international trade.

    And, in the shape of the Department for International Trade, the UK has an ideal – and indeed unique tool – to realise that opportunity to drive growth in a post-Brexit economy.

    And unlike many of our strategic partners such as Australia, or Canada, the United States or the European Union, the United Kingdom is unique – and I wonder how many people understand this – unique in carrying responsibility for export promotion, trade finance, trade remedies, exporting licensing and international negotiations in a single government department.

    It is one of the most important and farsighted legacies of Theresa May’s time as Prime Minister of this country.

    And DIT unites all the UK’s trade capabilities, bringing together the government’s international economic levers to give us a truly competitive ‘Trade Advantage’.

    It puts trade front and centre of the national agenda, a focal point to create the conditions for UK businesses to be competitive on the world stage.

    And as the only department with a network both in the UK and overseas, DIT is uniquely positioned to engage directly with business, with the high levels of expertise and global reach that those businesses need to exploit new opportunities.

    7. Aligning trade and development policy

    Now, it is not just about structures. As you will know it is also about priorities.

    It means ensuring that trade is at the forefront of the foreign policy agenda, as well as our development agenda, so that we can use the new policy freedoms which will be realised after we leave the European Union to better align our international policy goals.

    This means recognising the key role of trade in boosting global prosperity and security, and giving developing nations a chance – a real chance – to trade their way out of poverty on a sustainable basis.

    The Government is working hard to ensure development and global prosperity are at the heart of UK trade and investment policy, enhancing market access for poorer countries and ensuring that they can take advantage of this access through trade-related assistance that we give.

    We are committed to bringing trade and development policy closer together, investing to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous world and helping countries in the developing world leave aid dependency to become our trading partners of the future.

    This includes our £1.2 billion cross-Whitehall Prosperity Fund , to promote economic reform and development in countries eligible for ODA.

    And this will help tackle poverty and unlock new opportunities for UK businesses in strategically important markets such as India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South-East Asia.

    8. Global Economic headwinds

    And I believe the need for all this this is now stronger than ever. It will be no secret to those of you in this room this morning that significant headwinds are growing across the global economy.

    Last month, the OECD forecast of world GDP growth in 2019 and 2020 were revised down to 3.2% and 3.4% respectively.

    At the same time, global trade growth forecasts have been revised down significantly: by 1.6 percentage points to 2.1% for 2019 – the weakest rate since the height of the financial crisis.

    And for the first time in decades, the system of free, fair, rules based multilateral trade which underpins our prosperity, has itself come into question.

    The World Bank has identified that mounting protectionism and a broad-based increase in global tariffs could translate into a possible annual decline in global trade of 9%, or over US $2.6 trillion relative to the baseline in 2020.

    Of course, the strength of the UK economy has so far bucked the trend. The employment rate is at a record high, while the unemployment rate is at a 45-year low. Wages are growing faster than inflation.

    British exports stand at a record high of £645.8 billion – a year-on-year increase of 4% at a time when global trade growth has been slowing.

    And, as I have already pointed out, latest figures from UNCTAD found that the UK has once again been confirmed as the number one destination for FDI in Europe – hitting a record high of almost £1.5 trillion in stock – more than Germany and France combined.

    Nevertheless, for all its successes, we must acknowledge those headwinds in the global economic outlook in which we operate, and the risks which we therefore face.

    We need to take the measures in cooperation with our international economic partners to ensure those risks are mitigated, standing up for our belief in free trade and the free trading system.

    Otherwise there can be no guarantee that our economy will not be affected by adverse trends.

    9. Conclusion

    So we must be ready for whatever the future holds.

    The UK can only meet its global ambitions and drive prosperity at home – during a time of fierce international competition and global economic challenges – if it puts trade at the top of our agenda.

    That is why, at this critical juncture in our national history, it is essential we are appropriately equipped so the UK can boost its competitiveness, forge new and enhanced trade relationships around the world, and thus achieve our full economic potential.

    We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to realise our country’s potential as an outward looking, Global Britain.

    A country that promotes prosperity worldwide by helping developing countries to trade their way out of poverty.

    A country that champions free, fair, rules based trade, abiding by and shaping world-class standards and the international rules-based trading system.

    But we cannot do this on a shoestring and we must be willing to prioritise our spending to where it will lead to greater wealth creation and growth, providing us with the future funding of public services such as health, education and defence.

    Failure to take the scale of the challenge seriously will mean we may lose out on the potential of a new golden era of British trade.

    The opportunity is out there for the taking. And we must embrace it: with confidence, with optimism, and above all, with courage. Thank you.